WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[Milos]

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

+1

[Volker Pittlik]

... What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that?...

Why so much effort? To learn how to use a hex-editor may be to difficult for a participant of a future computer chess tournament.

To protect his privacy, encourage his creativity and to increase his income it is enough that he assigns a name to some piece of software and he should be accepted as a participant of all kind of tournaments.

The author should not discuss any aspects of his program, computer chess or programming in general. Announcing it of his facebook account and offer it for download somewhere is enough.

vp

ps. if you detect irony in this posting you may keep it.

[Terry McCracken]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

What does it matter? That legitimises a derivative?? If I modified it..tuned it for 50 or 100 elo it makes it right?? Is that your point?

[Milos]

... What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that?...

Why so much effort? To learn how to use a hex-editor may be to difficult for a participant of a future computer chess tournament.

To protect his privacy, encourage his creativity and to increase his income it is enough that he assigns a name to some piece of software and he should be accepted as a participant of all kind of tournaments.

The author should not discuss any aspects of his program, computer chess or programming in general. Announcing it of his facebook account and offer it for download somewhere is enough.

vp

ps. if you detect irony in this posting you may keep it.

Are all "Rostigraben" ppl so cynical?
Maybe the consequence of dual mentality...

[Robert Flesher]

No doubt Junior is a great engine, I bought the last one time ago and I happy with it, but surely I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.
I have not organized a tourn, but maybe someone did...or will. I would like to know about THOSE results.

Fern

+1
Agreed..

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available...
this year = Houdini

and towards that goal, the tournament should be 'open' format, not a hand-picked selection of 'approved' programs...
apparently the organizers can 'divine' which programs are 'clean' and which are not?

(like they knew the last 5 years w/ Rybka?)

the fact that Houdini is excluded is a travesty...
all due to the CCC establishment erroneously, unfairly, and without any evidence, labeling and blacklisting Ippolit engines as 'the clones'...

what a farce this has become.

referring to what M. Hull posted:
the ippolit source code is now known 'clean', thus competing against it is not akin to competing against a 'doped' athlete...they analogy is ridiculous.

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available... this year = Houdini

That's a pure crock. What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that? That's basically Houdart's modus operandi with Houdini, just replace Rybka 4.1 with Robolito...

Sounds like a wonderful tournament you would want... Nothing but clones.

Heya Bob, although I agree with you in principle 100%, in another way I must disagree. Please let me explain. One problem that does occur with the excluding of Rybka and it's children is the relative quality of the "CHESS" being played. OF course all the engines that did play are amazingly strong and played great chess, but I did say that the quality is relative. Most would agree that had Rybka or Houdini played the outcome would have been different, but more interesting to chess would the method in which those engines would have won. It is that ability to climb to the next level of chess that interests some of us.

One can observe that 2800 elo play looks good until a 2900 player comes along. It seems to me some people on this forum have become so caught up on the "who cloned who?" bullshit they have forgotten the "CHESS" aspect. There are still some people who enjoy these tournaments for the actual chess being played. Yes, cloning is wrong! and unacceptable, but why does Rybka and it's ever evolving family have to be so much stronger than the rest, it begs the question. I think everyone know what that is.

When you play someone in a tennis match, do you care about the quality of the game, or do you want to win using your skills and nothing else? For me, this has always been about the "competition". Me competing with others that have come up through the chess development process just as I did. Competing against copies of copies is not very attractive to me as a programmer. Might be what you as a spectator wants, of course, but spectating is a different activity than competing...

I think you may have missed my point. I am looking at this from a chess player's point of view. Good chess is about quality, and the fact remains regardless of origins, Rybka and it's offspring still walk all over any that played in the recent tournament. Likewise, I am sure when Kasparov retired, there was a huge sigh of relief from the other top players, however, chess tournaments just don't seem the same with him at the top. Sure there are other amazingly talented players, but the chess that Kasparov played in his prime was on another level. This was my point! Regarding clones, derivatives, etc, etc, I can only agree with your point of view. Capiche?

The tournaments have NOTHING to do with "chess players". They have everything to do with "chess program authors". As I said, "different audiences".

IF that is true then they should not have a website, should not send out press releases when they ban an engine, nor should anyone ever use it as advertising for the commercial engine or as publicity for their free engine.

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

You beat me to the punch! I was prepared to state something very similar, but you saved me the time.

[bob]

No doubt Junior is a great engine, I bought the last one time ago and I happy with it, but surely I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.
I have not organized a tourn, but maybe someone did...or will. I would like to know about THOSE results.

Fern

+1
Agreed..

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available...
this year = Houdini

and towards that goal, the tournament should be 'open' format, not a hand-picked selection of 'approved' programs...
apparently the organizers can 'divine' which programs are 'clean' and which are not?

(like they knew the last 5 years w/ Rybka?)

the fact that Houdini is excluded is a travesty...
all due to the CCC establishment erroneously, unfairly, and without any evidence, labeling and blacklisting Ippolit engines as 'the clones'...

what a farce this has become.

referring to what M. Hull posted:
the ippolit source code is now known 'clean', thus competing against it is not akin to competing against a 'doped' athlete...they analogy is ridiculous.

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available... this year = Houdini

That's a pure crock. What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that? That's basically Houdart's modus operandi with Houdini, just replace Rybka 4.1 with Robolito...

Sounds like a wonderful tournament you would want... Nothing but clones.

Heya Bob, although I agree with you in principle 100%, in another way I must disagree. Please let me explain. One problem that does occur with the excluding of Rybka and it's children is the relative quality of the "CHESS" being played. OF course all the engines that did play are amazingly strong and played great chess, but I did say that the quality is relative. Most would agree that had Rybka or Houdini played the outcome would have been different, but more interesting to chess would the method in which those engines would have won. It is that ability to climb to the next level of chess that interests some of us.

One can observe that 2800 elo play looks good until a 2900 player comes along. It seems to me some people on this forum have become so caught up on the "who cloned who?" bullshit they have forgotten the "CHESS" aspect. There are still some people who enjoy these tournaments for the actual chess being played. Yes, cloning is wrong! and unacceptable, but why does Rybka and it's ever evolving family have to be so much stronger than the rest, it begs the question. I think everyone know what that is.

When you play someone in a tennis match, do you care about the quality of the game, or do you want to win using your skills and nothing else? For me, this has always been about the "competition". Me competing with others that have come up through the chess development process just as I did. Competing against copies of copies is not very attractive to me as a programmer. Might be what you as a spectator wants, of course, but spectating is a different activity than competing...

I think you may have missed my point. I am looking at this from a chess player's point of view. Good chess is about quality, and the fact remains regardless of origins, Rybka and it's offspring still walk all over any that played in the recent tournament. Likewise, I am sure when Kasparov retired, there was a huge sigh of relief from the other top players, however, chess tournaments just don't seem the same with him at the top. Sure there are other amazingly talented players, but the chess that Kasparov played in his prime was on another level. This was my point! Regarding clones, derivatives, etc, etc, I can only agree with your point of view. Capiche?

The tournaments have NOTHING to do with "chess players". They have everything to do with "chess program authors". As I said, "different audiences".

IF that is true then they should not have a website, should not send out press releases when they ban an engine, nor should anyone ever use it as advertising for the commercial engine or as publicity for their free engine.

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

The participation is the issue here for ICGA events. They are organized for the programmers. That others care about the result is a result of the tournament, not the cause of holding it...

I didn't insult ANYONE. I specifically addressed the issues dealing with ICGA events and other similar events like CCT and ACCA online tournaments. Only authors can enter. That others want to follow is perfectly fine. But the rules are for the authors alone.

Somehow the "spectators" have decided that they should be able to dictate how these events are run. Uniform platform. Allow all clones. Etc. Again, they are free to watch, but not free to try to impose rules they want to see. They are certainly free to organize a tournament, use whatever rules they want, and then publicize the results. But most "authors" want a fair competition without clones/derivatives, where everyone writes their own program and then we compete head-to-head with each other on as level a playing field as we can define...

Don't see why that is "insulting" to anyone.

[bob]

No doubt Junior is a great engine, I bought the last one time ago and I happy with it, but surely I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.
I have not organized a tourn, but maybe someone did...or will. I would like to know about THOSE results.

Fern

+1
Agreed..

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available...
this year = Houdini

and towards that goal, the tournament should be 'open' format, not a hand-picked selection of 'approved' programs...
apparently the organizers can 'divine' which programs are 'clean' and which are not?

(like they knew the last 5 years w/ Rybka?)

the fact that Houdini is excluded is a travesty...
all due to the CCC establishment erroneously, unfairly, and without any evidence, labeling and blacklisting Ippolit engines as 'the clones'...

what a farce this has become.

referring to what M. Hull posted:
the ippolit source code is now known 'clean', thus competing against it is not akin to competing against a 'doped' athlete...they analogy is ridiculous.

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available... this year = Houdini

That's a pure crock. What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that? That's basically Houdart's modus operandi with Houdini, just replace Rybka 4.1 with Robolito...

Sounds like a wonderful tournament you would want... Nothing but clones.

Heya Bob, although I agree with you in principle 100%, in another way I must disagree. Please let me explain. One problem that does occur with the excluding of Rybka and it's children is the relative quality of the "CHESS" being played. OF course all the engines that did play are amazingly strong and played great chess, but I did say that the quality is relative. Most would agree that had Rybka or Houdini played the outcome would have been different, but more interesting to chess would the method in which those engines would have won. It is that ability to climb to the next level of chess that interests some of us.

One can observe that 2800 elo play looks good until a 2900 player comes along. It seems to me some people on this forum have become so caught up on the "who cloned who?" bullshit they have forgotten the "CHESS" aspect. There are still some people who enjoy these tournaments for the actual chess being played. Yes, cloning is wrong! and unacceptable, but why does Rybka and it's ever evolving family have to be so much stronger than the rest, it begs the question. I think everyone know what that is.

When you play someone in a tennis match, do you care about the quality of the game, or do you want to win using your skills and nothing else? For me, this has always been about the "competition". Me competing with others that have come up through the chess development process just as I did. Competing against copies of copies is not very attractive to me as a programmer. Might be what you as a spectator wants, of course, but spectating is a different activity than competing...

I think you may have missed my point. I am looking at this from a chess player's point of view. Good chess is about quality, and the fact remains regardless of origins, Rybka and it's offspring still walk all over any that played in the recent tournament. Likewise, I am sure when Kasparov retired, there was a huge sigh of relief from the other top players, however, chess tournaments just don't seem the same with him at the top. Sure there are other amazingly talented players, but the chess that Kasparov played in his prime was on another level. This was my point! Regarding clones, derivatives, etc, etc, I can only agree with your point of view. Capiche?

The tournaments have NOTHING to do with "chess players". They have everything to do with "chess program authors". As I said, "different audiences".

IF that is true then they should not have a website, should not send out press releases when they ban an engine, nor should anyone ever use it as advertising for the commercial engine or as publicity for their free engine.

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

You beat me to the punch! I was prepared to state something very similar, but you saved me the time.

Saved you from "wasting time" you mean...

[geots]

The case of the runner has sense, but this is not a case of runners because in this example you use, it is implicit from the beginning that the two entities are human beings, so, just the same entity.
The all point has been always here to discuss if that identity apply in this, engines, case. I think it is a matter of degree. IF one engine made on the ground of other has lot of extra code and get lot a extra elo points, I thinks it is not anymore the same entity. If one engine change just some banal things and is more or less same player, then you are right, we have just a clone.
It is a casuistic affair, i think, not a principled one.

My best
Fern

Fern, this whole situation is so far south of pitiful, where you gonna even start. I suppose considering the situation as is, one of Hyatt's goofy, insane analogies is about as good a place as any.

gts


PS: Hell with it. I want to see a championship between:


1. Houdini 2.0c

2. Rybka 4.1

3. IvanHoe 9.46a or B46a

4. DRK 42 or 77

5. MM12T or 03

6. Fire 2.2

7. Critter 1.2

8. Stockfish 2.1.1

9. Komodo 3

10. Strelka 5.1

11. RobboLito 0.09 (or maybe 0.085g3)

12. Junior- version used in WCCC


Maximum CPUs Allowed = 4

Equal Hardware Used by All


Put it on PPV and I will buy it.

[Robert Flesher]

No doubt Junior is a great engine, I bought the last one time ago and I happy with it, but surely I would like it in a tourn against the engines that all know are the strongest, cloned or not.
I have not organized a tourn, but maybe someone did...or will. I would like to know about THOSE results.

Fern

+1
Agreed..

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available...
this year = Houdini

and towards that goal, the tournament should be 'open' format, not a hand-picked selection of 'approved' programs...
apparently the organizers can 'divine' which programs are 'clean' and which are not?

(like they knew the last 5 years w/ Rybka?)

the fact that Houdini is excluded is a travesty...
all due to the CCC establishment erroneously, unfairly, and without any evidence, labeling and blacklisting Ippolit engines as 'the clones'...

what a farce this has become.

referring to what M. Hull posted:
the ippolit source code is now known 'clean', thus competing against it is not akin to competing against a 'doped' athlete...they analogy is ridiculous.

The World Champion should normally be the strongest program available... this year = Houdini

That's a pure crock. What if someone just takes commercial rybka, hex-edits the name, and enters that? That's basically Houdart's modus operandi with Houdini, just replace Rybka 4.1 with Robolito...

Sounds like a wonderful tournament you would want... Nothing but clones.

Heya Bob, although I agree with you in principle 100%, in another way I must disagree. Please let me explain. One problem that does occur with the excluding of Rybka and it's children is the relative quality of the "CHESS" being played. OF course all the engines that did play are amazingly strong and played great chess, but I did say that the quality is relative. Most would agree that had Rybka or Houdini played the outcome would have been different, but more interesting to chess would the method in which those engines would have won. It is that ability to climb to the next level of chess that interests some of us.

One can observe that 2800 elo play looks good until a 2900 player comes along. It seems to me some people on this forum have become so caught up on the "who cloned who?" bullshit they have forgotten the "CHESS" aspect. There are still some people who enjoy these tournaments for the actual chess being played. Yes, cloning is wrong! and unacceptable, but why does Rybka and it's ever evolving family have to be so much stronger than the rest, it begs the question. I think everyone know what that is.

When you play someone in a tennis match, do you care about the quality of the game, or do you want to win using your skills and nothing else? For me, this has always been about the "competition". Me competing with others that have come up through the chess development process just as I did. Competing against copies of copies is not very attractive to me as a programmer. Might be what you as a spectator wants, of course, but spectating is a different activity than competing...

I think you may have missed my point. I am looking at this from a chess player's point of view. Good chess is about quality, and the fact remains regardless of origins, Rybka and it's offspring still walk all over any that played in the recent tournament. Likewise, I am sure when Kasparov retired, there was a huge sigh of relief from the other top players, however, chess tournaments just don't seem the same with him at the top. Sure there are other amazingly talented players, but the chess that Kasparov played in his prime was on another level. This was my point! Regarding clones, derivatives, etc, etc, I can only agree with your point of view. Capiche?

The tournaments have NOTHING to do with "chess players". They have everything to do with "chess program authors". As I said, "different audiences".

IF that is true then they should not have a website, should not send out press releases when they ban an engine, nor should anyone ever use it as advertising for the commercial engine or as publicity for their free engine.

To say the tournaments have "nothing to do with chess players...and everything to do with the program authors", is like saying that art has nothing to do with the receivers (listeners, readers etc. etc.) and has everything to do with the artists.

And it actually goes both ways, it has everything to with the receivers and the artists.

And for you to blatantly insult those who enjoy following the tournaments shows a pomposity and pretense that is rather staggering and to be quite honest, disappointing!

You beat me to the punch! I was prepared to state something very similar, but you saved me the time.

Saved you from "wasting time" you mean...

Now, now Bob play nice. This was only a comparision of points of view, nothing more. Maybe you missed that I said I agree with you in principle 100%, and I only want to give another point of view. Nothing more!

[Terry McCracken]

The case of the runner has sense, but this is not a case of runners because in this example you use, it is implicit from the beginning that the two entities are human beings, so, just the same entity.
The all point has been always here to discuss if that identity apply in this, engines, case. I think it is a matter of degree. IF one engine made on the ground of other has lot of extra code and get lot a extra elo points, I thinks it is not anymore the same entity. If one engine change just some banal things and is more or less same player, then you are right, we have just a clone.
It is a casuistic affair, i think, not a principled one.

My best
Fern

Fern, this whole situation is so far south of pitiful, where you gonna even start. I suppose considering the situation as is, one of Hyatt's goofy, insane analogies is about as good a place as any.

gts


PS: Hell with it. I want to see a championship between:


1. Houdini 2.0c

2. Rybka 4.1

3. IvanHoe 9.46a or B46a

4. DRK 42 or 77

5. MM12T or 03

6. Fire 2.2

7. Critter 1.2

8. Stockfish 2.1.1

9. Komodo 3

10. Strelka 5.1

11. RobboLito 0.09 (or maybe 0.085g3)

12. Junior- version used in WCCC


Maximum CPUs Allowed = 4

Equal Hardware Used by All


Put it on PPV and I will buy it.

I guess you missed Don's joke or you missed the point.

Obviously no one other than a few nutjobs want to see Clone Wars with a handful of legit programs thrown in the mix.

Oh, of course you're just being facetious.